I’m giving a talk this Wednesday at 18.00 in the Ashmolean Museum Education Centre, Oxford, for Oxford Brookes University and Bloomsbury Publishing. It’s about Why Philosophy Matters.
Philosophy has had a hard time in the press lately. It’s said that philosophy is dead, that is is without content, that it has made no progress in nearly two and a half thousand years. Philosophy departments have been closed by those who say it’s an unjustifiable expense. Philosophers, memorably, have been called the gym teachers of academia. Philosophical chestnuts like the problem of free will are said to have scientific solutions, not philosophical ones. Is this criticism justified? Does philosophy still matter?
I’ll put it up here when I’ve tweaked it a bit.
Here’s a video I just discovered from a panel discussion I took part in at the philosophy festival HowTheLightGetsIn. The debate is about the value of technology. I argue, along with Langdon Winner, that technology isn’t neutral — in fact it can nudge us into particular political directions, whether we like it or not. There are further worries about whether or not the technology we use actually remakes us in a way, rewires our brains. I have the feeling at least some of the changes are not for the better — I’m in the ‘Google makes you stupid’ camp I think.
You can watch the talk here.
Here’s an extract from a piece for The European, on ethics and the Warsaw talks on climate change.
Instead of starting with the fact of the planet’s climate budget or even the history of emissions, we should start with thoughts about values. What matters to us, and what are we prepared to do for it? Is it simply money or do the lives of future generations matter? Are we prepared to pay something now to improve the lives of future people, a payment we know we’ll never get back? Or do we want cheap energy, and are we willing to harm the poor for it?
As George W. Bush said when opting out of the Kyoto treaty, ‘complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs for workers and price increases for consumers.’ He might have been pointy-headed but at least he was clear. What leads to the bickering in climate talks, what keeps our sights low, what ends negotiations in deadlocks, walkouts, and half measures, is the thought that taking action on climate change would cost too much. Ignoring the history of emissions would be a mistake, but a worse mistake is allowing economic concerns to swamp moral ones.
You can read the whole thing here: Do The Right Thing!
My associate Mr Cook and I took pleasure in demonstrating a bit of Bartitsu, the Victorian gentleman’s martial art, on Sunday Brunch on Channel 4. You can watch the demo here.
We were slightly hamstrung by lawyers, no doubt rightly concerned about showing anything too energetic on Sunday morning television. It all went fine though, I think. If you’re interested in Bartitsu, I’m teaching an introductory course at the Idler right now. You can book in here.
I wrote a review of John Broome’s book, Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World, for the TLS, called ‘Justice for a Dollar A Day’. It’s here if you’re a subscriber. The headline comes from Broome’s surprising views about justice and goodness. Here’s an extract from the review:
Surprisingly, Broome argues that goodness doesn’t demand much of us as individuals. You could throw yourself at reducing your carbon footprint, spend your savings on a yurt and a sustainable life, but you’d do much more good, extend many more lives, by simply donating some money to help combat tuberculosis. If you want to do something good, reducing your emissions is an ineffective choice. On the other hand, governments really do have the power and resources to make a difference to the climate. Duties of goodness fall exclusively on them.
Individuals should think instead about justice. Broome cites the World Health Organization’s estimate that the lifetime emissions of an average person in the West will wipe out more than six months of healthy human life. We’re all doing serious harm, and justice demands that we reduce our carbon footprints to zero. Broome argues that we should do all the usual environmentally friendly things – don’t waste water, be frugal with energy – and then cancel out our remaining emissions by offsetting, paying for the removal of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere equal to our emissions. For an average American this adds up to just $300 per year – your obligations to justice discharged for less than a dollar a day. It’s a bold claim, as many environmentalists are incapable of discussing offsetting without mentioning the sale of indulgences. Broome finds the usual objections wanting.
It’s a good book, I think. Well worth reading.
Providence College, a Roman Catholic institution in Rhode Island, recently cancelled a talk on same sex marriage by John Corvino, head of philosophy at Wayne State University. Here’s a bit from New York Times on the matter (the whole article is here).
Providence College, a Roman Catholic school in Rhode Island, has canceled a lecture in support of same-sex marriage on Thursday by a gay philosophy professor, citing a church document that says that “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”
The college apparently re-invited him, following loud objections, and Corvino’s reply is here.
The current issue of The Philosophers’ Magazine features a piece by Corvino on same sex marriage, and as his views are muffled elsewhere, it might be good to give them a hearing. Here’s the article. The comments are open at talking philosophy.
Here’s a short blog post for the Guardian: Pedaling Through the Night on the Dunwich Dynamo. In a sentence, around 2,000 cyclists on everything from road bikes to tandems show up at a pub in Hackney around 8 pm and ride through the night, unsupported, about 120 miles on mostly dark country roads to Dunwich on the Suffolk Coast. Here’s more info from Southwark Cyclists. It’s the furthest I’ve ever cycled, and it was an amazing, beautiful, challenging ride. I managed it in 13 and a half hours or so.
There’s the obvious question: why? I think probably it is an objectively ridiculous thing to do, but then again so is almost all sport. You’ve got to get this ball in that hole over there, but you can’t walk over and drop it in — you have to start here and use these sticks and try to hit it in. Almost all sporting endeavors are weird like this, it’s just that you’re more used to them than long distance cycling.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.